As usual, another HN thread that perfectly exemplifies victim blaming and a collective burying of heads in the sand. There's a few people on here who seem to get it, but most don't. I'm sick of it. Goodbye, Hacker News.
Hackers, in my experience, have more shared experience in being naive enough socially to allow themselves to be baited into making statements which are later used against them, than in actually saying things (or even associating with others who would say things) which are intentionally malicious.
We all understand fixing someone's computer and then being blamed for any problems it has from then on; or for making a software estimate and being held to it as a requirement. In short, hackers are used to being scapegoats, so the first conclusion we jump to when one of us is accused of something is that they're being scapegoated too.
This can look like "victim-blaming", but it's really more-than-anything a yearning for people to keep their standards of evidence high, and to avoid jumping to conclusions. Counterarguments and counterfactuals ("what else could have happened") aren't presented as "this is obviously what happened instead", but just to decrease confidence that the evidence presented thusfar is strong enough to prove anything much. If evidence A fits alleged narrative X, but also random equally-likely stories Y or Z, then X is no longer implied directly by A.
> This can look like "victim-blaming", but it's really more-than-anything a yearning for people to keep their standards of evidence high, and to avoid jumping to conclusions.
That really depends, now, doesn't it, on what the subject is? :) HackerNews seems, in general, to have a very low standard of evidence for things like "the NSA is doing something evil", and tends to be quite credulous on such things. It seems to have a very, very, _very_ high standard of evidence for "bigotry exists" though.
That's certainly one way to frame the reference classes involved. Let me try an alternate one:
> HackerNews seems, in general, to have a very low standard of evidence for "[large organizational structure] is doing something evil", and tends to be quite credulous on such things. It seems to have a very, very, _very_ high standard of evidence for "[individual] is doing something evil" though.
I think this succinctly predicts more of HN's behavior, personally. HN is just generally afraid to condemn individuals for much at all.
That doesn't exclude your conclusion from also being true, though: HN can be both resistant to condemning individuals, while also being biased against believing that bigotry is a thing that exists. But assuming that either one is the "whole cause" of any particular effect, will cause effects to seem weirdly large, because of the confounding effect of the other.
As a generalization this might be true, or not... but likely a lot of people commenting here just have a globally high standard of evidence. Why are they deleted from the picture?
What is sexist is that I think many people have not actually invested the energy in figuring out what the distribution of X, Y, and Z are. I think X is actually much more common in this kind of scenario than Y or Z, and honestly I think anyone who has actually gained the trust of a few women in tech and heard stories about what it is like is pretty likely to see that too.
Anyone who throws their hands up and says "well I guess X, Y, and Z are equally probable" to me clearly has not actually spent time understanding the problem.
You're doing exactly the thing people-who-are-oft-scapegoated are afraid of: equating "extremely probable" with "incontrovertibly proven."
In an actual trial, for a conviction to take place, evidence would have to be presented that leaves no room for reasonable doubt--which is to say, the evidence would have to effectively take Y/Z/etc. out of consideration.
We chose this standard because we, as a society, decided that there was something more important than making sure "justice is served" in all cases: making sure nobody has the power to condemn innocents at a whim by making up an "extremely probable" accusation.
But the court of public opinion has no such strict standard, even though the punishments it hands out can be far worse.
No, probable is probable. I'm happy to talk about unlikely corner cases, in an appropriate sidebar. I think anyone pushing them as a primary talking point has their priorities misaligned and is tilting at windmills.
This can look like "victim-blaming", but it's really more-than-anything a yearning for people to keep their standards of evidence high
I don't buy it. The "hacker type" despite self-professing as a logical bunch falls prey to all of the logical fallacies and cognitive biases that any other opinionated group does. The evidence is already out there, this is one of many incidents following a trend of sexism in this industry that has been going on for decades.
Github does not exist in a vacuum and real life social interaction doesn't use variables beyond a distant abstract analysis.
I know this is going to come across as unfriendly, but I'm always bemused when people make these little plays for attention. It's a massive site, you're not one of the notable commenters, if HN isn't delivering value why not just stop reading it quietly rather than announcing it to the world?
You see it as a play for attention, I see it as an expression of disappointment in a community they otherwise like in the hope that that community will perform a little more introspection.
It seems somewhat dramatic to me too, but I also have found the comments on the stories around this issue somewhat disappointing. That was their way of communicating it, this comment is mine.
Because human beings have a desire to express opinion and emotion?
Your attitude is the same as a lot of the socially inept that roam the valley and this message board. If This Isn't The Most Efficient Logical Course Of Action (according my perspective) Then It Bemuses Me.
But what's wrong with expressing an opinion on someone else's action? You are the one that is socially inept. No, wait, you are just expressing your opinion on someone else expressing their opinion on someone else expressing themselves. Oh, chripes, what was I trying to say again?
You put those words in my mouth, buddy. To clarify, social ineptitude combined with a degree of self-assured narcissism, resulting in a total disregard for the opinions of other people which don't jive with the most "logical" worldview. It's possible to be socially introverted and still considerate to other people.
Not the readership - assuming similar statistics to reddit, the vast majority don't comment, so we can't know - but it's certainly reasonable to draw that conclusion about the commenters from the comments on majority of threads regarding social issues.
Of course, there's a feedback loop in that people won't comment where the majority seem to disagree heavily with their morals, so that doesn't help with what threads like these look like. The sheer amount of personal attacks against people who disagree with victim-blaming views of this in this thread serve as a warning not to speak up.
This is pretty accurate, I would not have commented at all in here until I read this and just wanted to back you up on this point.
I read these type of threads on HN constantly and every time I walk away absolutely disgusted with what I see said in them. I don't have the will to comment myself because it just would not change anyones opinion and they would instantly go into attack mode.
Without trying to start a debate, it's well-established that women talk about personal things more readily than men do, and at greater length, and express emotion more readily than men do. This real difference between men and women is often described as a character flaw in men by women, and in women by men (if that wasn't too hard to unravel).
No examples so you can garner maximum support? What is this umbrella term 'victim blaming', anyways? Is there in this black and white view that you subscribe to no room for dual-guilt in setting up problems/crimes?
Can't you understand that at many times both parties are at fault for escalation? This is one actually useful thing that police manage to understand and accomplish, they understand that "Victims" often play a role. This is why screaming "self-defense" at every violence case does not work.
You will probably jump to rape as your first defense of victim blaming and examples, because that is the one to garner most backing off quickly.
To see what you're pissed off at, let's survey your comment history. I don't see anything particular to this case except getting pissed off, so i'll take your comment towards the website, calm. Hmm, A website towards meditation. Seems peaceful .
Let's not forget the website that was made to be only nice to people and to send encouragement only very recently. Seems like this community is trying.
But one occasion with 2 sides to a story, and it's all said and done it your book? See you later.
No way in hell should it be the top comment. I can't find any victim blaming at all in a quick skim, so if it's here it's not by any means a plurality opinion. bitops is being even worse and reactionary than they claim HN to be.
There was quite a lot of what I would consider to be victim blaming in the previous thread where it was less clear what the allegations were. Or at least, my impression of the thread was that there were a very high proportion of commenters saying we should reserve judgement and at the same time hypothesizing about all the ways that the woman might be at fault.
While this is all true (on the information we had in that thread, it was possible that the woman was the one at fault, and it's good to reserve judgement until more information arrives), it was really weird how many people felt the need to point these things out.
I do agree that this thread seems more balanced, although even in this thread people are surprisingly quick to point out that these problems are not 'sexism' (despite the fact that the situations described would have been an order of magnitude less likely to arise if she were a man).
> (despite the fact that the situations described would have been an order of magnitude less likely to arise if she were a man).
How and why is this a fact? Could really none of this happen to a male employee?
Crazy boss? Check. Workplace relationship? Check. "Enemies" reverting your code? Check. Management non-reactive to complaints? Check. I think a lot of this goes on regularly on many companies, an concerns many employees. In particular, what seems sexist here is trying to make this a women's problem, not an employee's problem.
It could be a top comment on reddit. Here, we (me in particular, and I think several other posters as well) prefer thoughtful discussion over emotional overreaction.
You suffer from egotistical self-righteousness. Someday, perhaps, you will no longer need to assuage your ego with delusional palliatives of moral superiority. Today a child died after a long and painful battle with cancer. Another died suddenly in a car crash after a heated argument, leaving loved ones in agony and self-doubt. Are you sure this is your battle? Perhaps you are only sick of the burden of your own unexamined piety and belief the universe must obey your whims.
>suffer
>irrelevant anecdotes to contrast against OP's "battle"
Why do you think he cares about children dying? Is it really so hard to grasp the notion that we are emotionally compelled by things relevant to our own lives at any given time?
This may be his battle, or maybe it's not a battle at all. Maybe you should stop this hyperbolic nonsense, because you're the one making it a battle.
It's all really hard work and a winery is likely even more work. You need to always be watching the grapes, you have to hire seasonal workers to pick the grapes (actually not much automation in this area) plus the unpredictability of the weather.
Do you mean geographic area, or grape-picking? Because these [1] are fantastic at picking grapes automatically. Sure you still need a driver, but it's slightly faster than doing it by hand.
Agreed - if you swing a sword hard enough it just becomes a bat, not a cutting device. I feel like this armor empowers people who'd like the experience of just wailing on somebody with a stick, but it doesn't really simulate a real combat scenario.
That would be fine except Hershey's chocolate really isn't very good. They use way too much sugar and not enough cocoa to really make it respectable chocolate. The only reason it sells well is because of market dominance and that many Americans are deprived of exposure to good, high-quality chocolate.
When it comes to food we should remember that the Bay Area is a total bubble. Some of the finest food in the world is produced here and some very innovate and ground-breaking work in the various food movements came from here.
> The only reason it sells well is because of market dominance
That's a tautology.
You can have your opinion, and down-vote me all you like, but it's really disrespectful to call an entire country provincial because you disagree with a particular taste palette.
I don't actually know my chocolate preference, but as someone who enjoys well done steaks and sweet wines, let me tell you: people are not very tolerant of alternative palettes.
Yeah, especially with certain foods, it becomes a matter of quality vs. preference. As in, "this wine cannot possibly be of high quality because it is too sweet". So, you're an ignorant peasant for preferring it.
So, white wines in general are inferior to reds. I always chuckle when I come across red descriptions that read "hints of leather and chocolate" or similar. I never taste what's described. Either my palate is severely underdeveloped (as with any good peasant) or there's a lot of Emperor's New Clothes going on.
Over the last few years, however, the elite seem to be relenting at least somewhat. Reislings have begun to cross over at least to the extent that you won't lose your trust fund for sneaking down a glass now and then.
Did he edit the comment or something? I see nothing that calls an entire country provincial. Calling something terrible is fine by me. Life would be terribly boring if you had to preface everything with "In my opinion". I am deeply sorry if I offended anyone who does preface everything like that, by calling their lives terribly boring.
> That would be fine except Hershey's chocolate really isn't very good. They use way too much sugar and not enough cocoa to really make it respectable chocolate.
That description sounds a lot like the chocolate milk we drank in Indonesia; it tastes very watered down with added sugar. Totally undrinkable. Chocolate milkshakes were the only way to get something chocolaty, milky and drinkable.
Interestingly, lots of stuff about Indonesia struck me as surprisingly American (for a former Dutch colony in Asia), but I hadn't considered that this could also be true for their chocolate milk.
I think the discussion is about "milk chocolate", a solid chocolate used in candy, not "chocolate milk", milk flavored with chocolate. 'Tis an interesting transposition, though!
You are absolutely correct that there's a difference between mil chocolate and chocolate milk. However, the comparisons with both having less chocolate and more sugar in the US is relevant for a comparison of American vs European tastes.
It's true that "consumer chocolate" in America is pretty bad, i.e. anything made by Hershey's. Too much sugar and not enough cocoa.
Good stuff should be above 57% cocoa. If it's less than that, buy high-quality milk chocolate.
That said, other commenters on this thread are correct that it's not too hard to find good chocolate if you just know what to shop for.
My all time favorite is Valrhona. It's by far the best chocolate of them all. Obviously that's personal preference.
We're lucky that we have at least two awesome local brands in the Bay Area. Recchiuti chocolate is awesome, the only location I know of is in the ferry building. Tcho chocolate is the other one and I've been told that they do some interesting stuff with analytics to create the ultimate chocolately goodness.
I care little for Ghirardelli. I went to Ghirardelli Square as a kid and it was fun, but it's just not my thing now.
I'm from the UK. Our chocolate has taken a beating lately, and in fact there was a call from some part of the EU establishment to ban UK chocolate manufacturers from calling their chocolate 'chocolate'. Instead they would have to call it 'hydrogenated something or other'. It didn't happen.
That said, I once tried a Hershey's chocolate bar on a work trip to the US. I was almost physically sick from the taste. It is truely, truely awful.
Exactly, the amount of cocoa butter is just as important if not more important than the amount of cocoa. Unfortunately the amount of cocoa butter is rarely found on the package.
I don't know about the milk chocolate suggestion. The taste comes from all the fat that comes from the milk and you have maybe 20% cocoa. You may just as well have a smaller piece of a dark chocolate with a glass of milk.
I actually prefer milk chocolate over dark chocolate. And yes, I've had all the good, high percentage cocoa, chocolates from Switzerland, Belgium etc. I like the sweeter, milder taste, and and tired of some of my friends who keep annoying me with this "you're not eating real chocolate". They've turned into chocolate snobs.
Imagine a scientific study that just said "Scientific justification for social oppression found." In a nutshell, I believe that's why.
It's not even that it's bad for there to be differences between the sexes; what's bad is that some people will inevitable take these studies as justification for their sexist views and attitudes.
But that article concludes that “the Negro” is NOT inferior:
> I have tried to review briefly the important fields in which evidence of Negro inferiority is most likely to be found, if found at all. In no case is the proof conspicuous by its volume---rather the opposite appears true.
I actually wondered how such an article got published as late as 1927. That would explain it. I can go find a better one tonight. More broadly, though, here's a Wikipedia page on the subject:
Glancing through the citations, #33 is "Tiedemann, Friedrich (1836). "On the Brain of the Negro, Compared with that of the European and the Orang-outang" (PDF). Phylosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 126."
Agreed - I have to mention necroscope86 on YouTube. By far my favorite LP'er. I think he had a snafu with his account that deleted a bunch of videos, but he had some very funny X-COM play throughs. It was more about his commentary and British accent that made it worth watching than the actual games themselves.
Some of my favorite LPs have come from LtMkilla (Dead Space and the ill-fated Bioshock LPs come to mind). His humor probably isn't for everybody (whose is?), but I love his videos.
If we're highlighting great LPs, I'll have to throw in a recommendation for ChipCheezum's LPs of the Metal Gear Solid games. The humour is spot on, and the games themselves are covered in exhaustive detail. His LPs of Mega Man Legends and the Uncharted series are great too.
Funny enough, that attitude may make it more successful in the long term. History has shown many times that it's not always the 100% dead serious who make it, but those who are just, well...making it up as they go along.
Lots of truth to this from a brand perspective, but the underlying technology of Dogecoin is pretty serious, it just happened to be deployed in a playful way. Not unlike the way that gaming technology or 4chan’s infrastructure is serious.
we can have serious hearing in Senate on BTC with outcome rules [almost] killing or seriously affecting it. Having a hearing and SEC/FBI enforcement on Doge? With Doge as a witness. Put you paw on the Bible and repeat after me ...
Well...there's that one operating system out there that got pretty popular after some guy in Finland posted it online. Name escapes me at the moment, though.
That's the thing - my karma is high enough that I know what not to post. Generally speaking. Every once in a while though, I get tired of pretending that I don't also have a goofy sense of humor and stuff like this slips through. Oh well.
